Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Penn Credits "3 AM" Ad With Momentum

UPDATE, 3 pm: Following up on their conference call earlier today, the Clinton campaign released a memo entitled: "Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief."

In the memo, Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign, writes: "If Barack Obama says it's fear mongering to talk about how Senator Clinton will protect America, he is going to have a rough time up against John McCain. This is not a debate he can duck with two wars going on."

Penn said the ad, which began airing Friday, effectively framed the question of "who's ready and prepared to be commander-in-chief." Penn added: "Just by merely asking the question and nothing more, millions of people understood what is the answer to that question." He called it a "tipping point" in the race that has signaled a "change in momentum."

Penn also suggested that Obama's alleged inability to stand up to Clinton on the national security question bodes poorly for his (and Democrats') chances of winning that argument against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the fall. "If Senator Obama can't be seen to be commander-in-chief against Senator Clinton, how can he possibly expect to be seen as someone who can win the commander-in-chief question against Senator McCain?" Penn asked.

The Clinton campaign -- as evidenced by Penn's comments -- seem to believe that pushing national security and electability to the forefront of the Democratic nomination fight is paying dividends in the final days before must-win votes in Ohio and Texas.

The Clinton campaign launched a new ad this morning in Texas that seeks to make even more explicit the contrast between Clinton and Obama on national security.

Here's the ad:

The ad is a follow-up to last week's debate in Cleveland, where Clinton first criticized Obama for failing to conduct hearings before a Senate subcommittee that he has chaired since the start of 2007. The ad features debate footage of Obama acknowledging that "it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan."

The ad's narrator then twists the knife; "Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security, bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursuing al-Qaeda in Afghanistan," the narrator says.

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson refused to entertain questions about what would happen if Clinton can't sweep the popular vote in Ohio and Texas. "I have avoided making [Joe] Namath-esque predictions throughout this campaign," said Wolfson. "It will be very clear Wednesday morning which campaign has had the better of the day and which campaign has had the worst of it."

Should Clinton take Ohio and Texas, Wolfson offered a preview of the campaign's spin heading forward. Reciting a laundry list of states that she has carried that would include Ohio and Texas, Wolfson described them as a "diverse set of states from coast to coast." He then argued that if Obama can't win Ohio and Texas with "every possible strategic advantage," it speaks to an unease among voters with the idea of Obama as the Democratic nominee.

The Obama campaign will hold a noon conference call...and The Fix will be on it.

I strongly support Hillary, but like millions of Dems, if Obama takes it, I'll campaign for him. What i won't do is take any criticism of either Obama or Hillary from the Republicans who supported GBush. Look at the god-awful mess we're in now. The lowest blow of all is the meeting between the heads of Iran and Iraq. WE HAVE BROUGHT TWO TRADITIONAL ENEMIES TOGETHER!! Does anyone in Irag love us for getting rid of Sadaam? GBush will slink into retirement, gather tumbleweed and stew in his own mess. What a retirement that fool is going to have. So let's not have the neocons telling us what's wrong with anyone!

Hillary Clinton is a fighter and she will win the nomination. I am sick and tired of the Obama whiners who claim everytime there is an ad that questions Obama that it is negative or racial.
Is this honestly the type of President we want? We are just finishing a President who never allows criticism.
If Obama thinks the Republican Nominee is going to be SO NICE he is in for real trouble.

Sen. Hillary Clinton will never get my family's vote. As lifelong Democrats, we are sickened by Sen. Clinton's scare tactics and her sleazy politics. Her praise of John McCain at the expense of Barack Obama has sealed the deal. Here she is in all her glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw
Mark it down: three Democrats who will vote a straight Democrat party line, but abstain from supporting someone who will do anything to win, even destroy her fellow Democrats.
Hopefully, the country will never have to suffer through another Clinton "experience."

Chris Cillizza says "Clinton has avoided running any real negative campaign ads in Ohio" and the "3 AM" ad is a negative ad, I heard elsewhere that the "3 AM" ad is not running in Ohio. Clinton's showing more recent 'momentum' in Ohio than Texas. Therefore these negative national security ads shouldn't get credit for recent Clinton 'momentum' in Texas. The recent poll changes reflect bad press for Obama over NAFTA. Obama has not been talking straight about trade, the voters now know it, and it hurts him in both Ohio and Texas.

keep up your sexist statements on behalf of your candidate and he will be the one they will be talking about needing to drop out tomorrow. Try making those kinds of comments at work and you would be canned in a heart beat.

razzl said its unlikely 1 million people will even vote tomorrow, interesting we have already cast 1 1/2 million early votes in Texas.

Its also apparent that the sexists and ageist are back in force with comments like "she is a tart and cackling like an old hen.."

I wonder with these insults why any woman or boomer would even consider your candidate unless uncivility is merely representative of some of his immature supporters. If I were B.O. I would be ticked that such comments were undermning your candidate's reputation for so called working to bring this nation together, right pitting GenY voters against their parents and men against women..

actually Hillary has had to deal with 2 minor crisis: calming her constituents and firefifghters p.o with Rudi after 911 and the foreclosure crisis which she calmly crafted a plan for foreclosures and an economic recession, presented to Larry Kudlow on CNBC 6 months before either W or B.O. even thought about them. Sen. Lehey even praised Hillary's calmness and leadership after 911 on the Senate floor. Surprised Penn didn't make these obvious responses.

Were Hillary in Obama's shoes, the calls for his suspension of the race would be loud and deafening. But, of course, he is Obama running for office in USA and must justify his name, religion, pastors, friends, speeches, patriotism, wife's thesis, failure to attend senate meetings while campaigning for office, etc.

I am surprised they have not asked him to justify how he got into Harvard. But that too is just a question of time.

Here are some observations from an interested Canadian:
1. The day before the New Hampshire primary, CNN ran Hillary's cry-baby routine repeatedly to the exclusion of everything else on the campaign. Barack was barely on the CNN radar. That Hillary won against the odds was not surprising.
2. Why is Barack's connection to Tony Rezco such a big deal when Barack has disavowed Rezco and returned all of Rezco's contributions? Why are McCain's connections to lobbysts and McCains's and the Clintons' connections to Savings and Loans fiasco of the mid nineties swept under the rug?
3. Being a Canadian, I wouldn't exactly vouch for what a Canadian official said about Barack's ambiguous position on Nafta. As Donovan Bailey, the Canadian Olympic Gold medalist, said while training for the Olympics in Atlanta, Canada doesn't exactly measure up to the US as far as providing equal opportunities for the minorities. I am living proof of that. So, what a Canadian official says about Obama camp waffling on the Nafta issue can be attributed to a vested interest and taken with a bucket of salt.
4. In Hillary's purported 35 years of experience, she must be counting her entire professional life. That kind of yardstick would qualify many to be the President of the USA, especially when the most significant years of those 35 years, the 8 years in the White House, she had no clue what was going on under her own nose.
5. Why has CNN and other media caved in to complaints from Hillary and her cohorts that she is not getting equal coverage in the news media and now run Hillary's stuff 60% of the time. I am an independent observer from another country. I should know the difference.
6. Why are personal attacks on Barack from Hillary's camp, some Republicans and many journalists, such as distributing a picture of Barack in Somali garb (it is a Somali garb, for goodness sake, and not a Muslim garb per se), having to disavow Farakhan for something that Farakhan said (what happened to Democracy and the free-speech rights of Farakhan enshrined in the US constitution, for crying out loud), and having to defend Michelle Obama's statement that she's never been more proud of America as she is now (a sentiment held by many, many interested people around the world after the abyss that the current administration has led the US to) are fair game when any personal attacks on Hillary or McCain is taboo?
7. To me, it is clear that there is a concerted effort by the same old, same old Washington-types and their cohorts (that includes CNN, in spades) to discredit the only phenomenon in more than two generations to grace our landscape, offering hope for the entire human kind. As Christ said, a prophet is not without honour except in his own land, among his own people.

Voice of the White House February 28, 2005
TBR News.org February 28, 2005

"An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove's "good friend" 'Jeff Gannon' are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb. Leather Dominator, who had won the Miss Virginia Daddy Bear title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR's, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a "respectable" gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.

I don't know if anybody else has noticed it, but it seems to me the media is trying to play king maker. Obama is taking arrows from McCain, Clinton and now the media. My guess it that the corporate media would like the demcocrats to fight all the way to the convention. This would give McCain a big leg up. This country stinks. And until the people take back the air ways we're going continue to be in a world of crap.

"Lot of interest out here this morning," Crossley muttered. No one showed up for the auction of 7 homes that were in foreclosure.

It wasn't always such a lonely job. When Crossley became an auctioneer two years ago for Purcellville-based Nectar Projects, foreclosure sales were few, and they would regularly draw packs of investors armed with cash and eager to bid. Now it's rare for anyone to show up. In the past three months, Crossley has conducted auctions on some 200 properties in Northern Virginia, and he has sold one.

_____________________________________________________

what does that mean, relative to the discussion regarding Obama and Hillary ???

that the people who caused this, currently deadlocking Congress and running things for their private benefit in WASHINGTON through the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

are trying to keep things status quo, maintain their grip on the cash flow...

not knowing what is going on in WASHINGTON, and saying that those who want to bring up specific examples _OF_THAT_ are talking about the past scares me.

I see a junior congressman, buying into and using what the repulsive scammers are selling as a way of getting elected

w/o regard to what his election will mean to the people.

you want to know what will happen? look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.

If we had acted 30 years ago on his very good ideas, there would be no energy problem, probably greenhouse gases would be under control and our economy would still be booming and manufacturing would still be in_country...

but Carter was backstabbed, because he wanted to "play fair,"

after Nixon, everyone wanted someone that would "play fair,"

unfortunately, Jimmy didn't know how to make sure the bullies played fair as well...

do I need to paint a picture ????

these guys don't "play fair,"

they have male prostitutes spend the night at the white house and use homophobia to herd the gomers...

they're trying to get you to back the Hubert Humphrey of the Democratic pack...

everyone wanted someone that wasn't crooked and had no Washington D.C. connections...

listen closely, no Washington D.C. connections or understanding translates to

no support.

Jimmy Carter was a great thinker, and ahead of his time in working towards peace. He was the antithesis of a war monger. He didn't fit in with the Washington D.C. Military Industrial Complex, though he had been a commander of a submarine and had a degree in engineering.

He thought that because he had been elected President that people in Washington would treat him special, and with respect.

they didn't.

I don't want to waste four years with Obama finding out that it takes more than rhetoric to survive and get things done. And a democratic congress made up of elitists forging for thier own class isn't much better than a repulsive scammer congress....spending every dime on themselves.

Obama, hasn't faced what it takes to be president in these transitory times. Slamming the one person willing to address "today," as a person living in the past shows

from johnhouse at 3:51 pm: "When Hillary Clinton was faced with the most important decision of our generation she caved in and followed the crowd that gave George Bush and Dick Cheney a blank check to make the biggest foriegn policy mistake this country has ever made."

I think we'll need a little more time before making this judgement. I cannot say for certain that this was the biggest foreign policy mistake we've ever made.

You could make a strong case for the Vietnam debacle being our biggest foreign policy mistake.

And possibly, the Fillipino Insurrection was more cruel and inhumane.

We'll need more time to see if we can get out of Iraq and go after the REAL ENEMY. If we can, we might be able to limit the strategic damage of this disastrous move.

If we stay -- say for 100 years -- then, you may be right and this could well go down in our history as the biggest error we've made.

If we continue to occupy Iraq, we will continue to stengthen our enemies and weaken (needlessly) ourselves. All the while not fully concentrating on the real enemy.

The last hours in the Clinton Bunker are spent by grasping at straws. Hillary's arguments are getting both weaker and sillier by the day. The famous 3 am ad may backfire one day on the Democrats. If McCain revives it in the fall, he will win over both Hillary and Obama, because the answer is of course that McCain is the one who is most ready at 3 am. He is the only one of the three to have experienced it before.

The issue of "experience" to be President is a fallacy. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all equal in experience. Having served in uniform does not qualify you to be commander-in-chief. Serving on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations or the Armed Services does not qualify you to be commander-in-chief. Being a former president's spouse does not qualify you to be commander-in-chief.

Regardless of who is elected, each of them would do exactly the same thing if they got a call at 3:00am. He or she would call the watch team at the National Security Council operations center, then they would get the National Security Advisor, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State conferenced in. When that time comes, I'm confident that Barack Obama will have the temperament and judgement to make whatever decision is called for.

welcome to the grand illusion and delusion of the Clintonistas. Laura Bush and Nacy Reagan have same foreign affairs experience as Hillary, perhaps they can be Secretary of State and NSC advisor. One more day and hopefully it will be over.

I wanted to say that Obama had accomplished a great lot(see his records) as Illinois state sentator and then as US senator from Illinois within 2000-2006, the same while of time when Mrs.Clinton had accomplished practically nothing. Is not it elequent enough? I am sure that nothing else needs to be added on the subject.

What is anything at all has done Hillary Clinton as US senator from NY since her re-election in 2006. Nothing whatsoever. More than that, she had done practically nothing at all within her previous term in senate 2000-2006, and Obama has accomplished a great lot within the same while of time as Illinois state senator, and then as US senator from Illinois. When would the country finally get the break from this disgusting liar and hypocrit-Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Obama to Canadian government -- "Don't worry, everything I'm saying about NAFTA in the primaries is just to get votes, and I won't actually do any of it." He's going to change alright ... most of what he's been selling to the voters.

What was Hilary's 3AM moment? Senator's do not have 3AM moments, President's do. Is she implying that by being at Bill's side that she shared the responsibility? Is she telling us that in her Presidency she will share power with a second, shadowy co-Chief Executive who happens to around at 3AM? The dual chief executive is a scary thought to me. "We have nothing to fear but fear mongers themselves."

tessa
Where did you do your research? perhaps you should try the local news stand? see the recent Time article:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html
It's a good thing that both the article and common sense tell us that experience is not a predictor of success esp. since neither Ms. Clinton (who slept in the same house with the guy who had to answer the phone) nor Mr.Obama have had to make those kind of decisions. So its left to what it is always left to--who has the judgment to make the right decision. I have to say that to me, its Obama hands down.

"momentum"? "Millions of people"? What momentum would that be, the momentum that now has Obama ahead of Clinton in Texas and Ohio for the first time today? And I didn't see any calculation that there were even going to be a million votes cast in all 4 contests, let alone that that many people had changed their minds.

The public has rejected Bush because he tried to manipulate us with the politics of fear, and using the exact same tactic with the exact same rhetoric demands that any Democrat with character reject Hillary for this militaristic nonsense. The next four years must be about getting real about the post 9/11 world, not in continuing the neocon fantasy of using endless war as a tool for political control over the American public...

I suppose it was a tipping point, from a spirited but respectful campaign to Bush-style fearmongering. And once you've tipped...well, any plumber can tell you what flows downhill.

Note that in 2004, Bill Clinton said "Note that in 2004, Bill Clinton said: "If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

Chertoff is a master of cover-up. He defended a financier of Osama bin Laden and kept him out of jail. He looked the other way during the investigation into the death of White House lawyer Vince Foster. Chertoff advised the White House and CIA on the legality of torture. No one said a word about any of this, and now Chertoff is in Bush's Cabinet as Director of Homeland Security.

The 9/11 Money
The June 20, 2000 Bergen County Record reported that attorney Michael Chertoff defended Dr. Magdy Elamir, a suspected terrorist financier. Dr. Elamir's HMO was sued by the State of New Jersey to recoup $16.7 million in losses. At least $5.7 million was unaccounted for, funneled "to unknown parties ... by means of wire transfers to bank accounts where the beneficial owner of the account is unknown."

Magdy Elamir financially supported the Al Salam Mosque, where the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman preached before he was arrested for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

This is the same Dr. Magdy Elamir who was featured in the Dateline NBC investigation with Randy Glass. In fact, Glass said he had spoken with Dr. Elamir as part of his under-cover infiltration of the ISI-linked arms dealers. "Dateline" reported that intelligence reports accused Dr. Elamir of having "had financial ties with Osama bin Laden for years." During a recorded telephone conversation with Glass Elamir's brother, Mohamed, tried to purchase "small arms and ammunition."

In the words of attorney Lynne Stewart, even the most despicable deserve representation. But as Stewart knows, unless you have White House connections, defending the despised carries a high price. Stewart faces 30 years in prison for actions taken in defense of the Blind Sheikh. Dr. Elamir was a suspect in a highly-monitored, sensitive operation at the center of the secret history of 9/11. But thanks to Michael Chertoff, Elamir was not charged.

"Dateline" reported that Dr. Elamir and his corporations paid at least $5,000 to arms dealer Diaa Moshen. In an ambush interview on camera, Dr. Elamir referred to Moshen as "a family friend."

"By the time Operation Diamondback culminated in arrests in the summer of 2001, Michael Chertoff was the assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division. Operation Diamondback would have fallen under his purview since it was a criminal case and not a counterterrorism case," said researcher Allan Duncan.

That means that after defending an alleged financier of 9/11, Chertoff became a prosecutor who should have prosecuted the same financier. In fact, there was a brief period before the verdict on Elamir came in and after Chertoff was nominated, in which there was an overlap between the two.

Chertoff served as assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. The post is the same one Robert Mueller held when he stymied Senator John Kerry's investigation into BCCI.

Master of Finances
In October 2001, fresh from his defense of El-Amir, Chertoff was picked by the White House to head Operation Green Quest, the multi-agency initiative to target sources of funding for terrorist organizations. Chertoff told the Associated Press on Oct. 25, 2001 that, "The lifeblood of terrorism is money, and if we cut the money we cut the blood supply."

Two years later, former White House terrorism expert Richard Clarke stated, "The US effort to shut down financial support for terrorist networks is being seriously hampered by a government reorganization that has left the most experienced agencies without any real power." Clarke was a counter-terrorism expert in the Clinton and Bush administrations until he left government in disgust in 2003. "The decision to put the Federal Bureau of Investigation in charge of terror finance investigations, and to give new powers to the Department of Homeland Security, [has] set the campaign back." (1)

In Congressional testimony, Clarke seemed to agree with Glass's assessment of the FBI: "Having the current structure where the FBI is in charge and tells everybody else what to do, is a recipe, I think for failure...The FBI by tradition doesn't co-operate well with other federal agencies and it doesn't share information. It treats other federal agencies as second-class participants in the overall effort."

While head of Green Quest, Michael Chertoff played a central role in formulating U.S. anti-terrorism policy, which included a vast expansion of police powers and the secret detention of hundreds of Middle Easterners in the United States. Chertoff was one of the chief architects of Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001.

This ad has SNL written all over it. Imagine a President Hillary being awakened at 3AM only to discover Bill still isn't home. Do we really need a possible domestic altercation in the mist of a potential national crisis? Would the Secret Service still intervene in the case of a President throwing a table lamp at an ex-President?

I find it preposterous that a candidate who has lost 11 straight contests, squandered $140 million and the mantle of "inevitability," and in just 2 weeks has managed to blow 20-point leads in two states that were supposed to be her "firewall" can now claim "momentum." What planet are these people living on?

But then, what do you expect from a campaign that's going around telling voters this election should be decided on the basis of who has the most "experience" in national security matters, when they know perfectly well their opponent in the fall will be John McCain, a decorated war hero whose 50 years of experience in the military and in national security matters blow away Hillary's 8 years as First Lady. Are they delusional? Or just incredibly stupid?

I don't think Hillary's fear-mongering will work against Obama who has swiftly and effectively rebutted it with his own ad focusing on the importance of judgment over "knowing world leaders" (which if you listen carefully is the only credential Hillary is claiming, because it's the only credential she can claim in this arena). But if she should by any chance succeed, she's setting herself up for a drubbing by McCain, who will only need to play her own ad back and ask voters, "Who has more experience?" Making this a race about fear and experience in national security matters plays right into McCain's hands; she can't out-Republican the Republicans. The Democrats' only hope is to make it a race about something better, about a fundamental change in direction for a country that has gone off the rails both internationally and domestically. That's what Obama is doing, that's why his message resonates with Democratic primary voters, that's why he'll win the nomination, and that's why he'll beat John McCain in November---because at the end of the day, Hope triumphs over Fear.

Funny thing is, at one time the Clintons knew that. Remember the "Man from Hope," attacked as a national security neophyte by the sitting President George H.W. Bush, another decorated war hero with loads of foreign policy and national security experience including service as UN Ambassador, chief liaison to China, CIA director, 8 years as Vice President, and 4 years as President? Yet Clinton prevailed because he offered a positive, upbeat alternative at a time when people thought the country was skidding down the wrong track. Obama-like, you might say.

This is the '84 Mondale "Red Phone" ad all over again, directed at Obama instead of Gary Hart. Only now it has far less resonance, as there is no super-power poised to blow us away at a moment's notice.

Can any of the Clinton haters out there who are whining about the "unfair" treatment of the "Holy One", tell me how the Chair of the oversight committee on Afghanistan can justify holding NO hearings in 2007?

Hillary and some of her supporters claim she is better than Barack because she has more experience, especially on national security issues. This argument, if successful in duping voters, will only undermine either her or Barack, if they are the nominee. John McCain will counter, he has far more experience, especially on national security, than either of them. If experience, to Hillary's supporters, is really the most important qualification to be president, then Hillary's supporters should vote for John McCain, if she is the nominee.

On the other hand, if superior judgment and wanting to finally try to unite the country are more important, than her most strident supporters should stop the highly negative campaigning to vote for Barack.

The Obama folks are really going to be stressed out when his professional record and personal dealings receive some long overdue scrutiny. Start with the lies from Obama and his campaign the past few days about the meeting that Canadian TV has been reporting the past week. Obama denied that it happened and then today acknowledged it did happen but that it wasn't like Canadian TV said or as documented in a letter by an attendee. Does he have a problem making up his mind or is he just inherently untruthful?

Apparently Washington Post Journalists consider it journalism to type up in verbatim the senseless drivel put out by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The entire front page is filled with articles supporting Hilary Clinton or spewing out kool-aid laced rhetoric from her campaign.

yes, imagine....how the world respects someone that does what they say they will do. The first thing the worlds' dictators will do, once the flaming aXXholes currently stealing our military and intelligence agencies to use as private business tools will do is

test our resolve.

so, I am all for a personality in charge that will do what is necessary if it needs to be done.

the invasion of IRAQ, was a business deal and has nothing to do with aggression. Word has it that the whitehouse is very "non agressive," and engages in oral sex with male prostitutes according to the net

SEARCH on JEFF GANNON, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Trent Lott

George W. Bush isnt' war like. He's into defrauding CONGRESS and the UNITED STATES PEOPLE...

JOHN W. DEAN, Nixon's IMPEACHMENT COUNSELOR, said that George W. BUSH HAD DEFRAUDED CONGRESS in order to invade IRAQ...

he lays out over 300 pages of documentation of how bush did it and why he needs to be impeached.

the UNITED STATES is not at war with IRAQ, they [ bushCO and CRONYs ] invaded it and now hold it as a colony.....

that they will strip of oil and benefit from.

SAUDI ARABIA just built the largest OIL REVINERIES IN THE WORLD....and yet their oil wells are all over 50 years old and starting to fail

why would they do that ????? They havea deal with bushCO and CRONYs to process IRAQI and IRANIAN OIL ??????

you figure it out D.A. es

.grow up and quit playing middle school mind games take your country back from the corruption that currently holds it enthralled.

Mark Penn claims Obama can't stand up to Clintons claims about his readiness to be president but in reality he responded immediately with words that I was saying at the very same time. When Hillary Clinton was faced with the most important decision of our generation she caved in and followed the crowd that gave George Bush and Dick Cheney a blank check to make the biggest foriegn policy mistake this country has ever made. I'm not worried about Barack but Hillary concerns me..

Holy crap, Penn's right! I never saw it like that before! I'm going to switch my vote over to Hillary!

Please. What momentum is Penn talking about? Obama has won the last ELEVEN FLIPPIN' CONTESTS!!! Hillary has the same momentum as a piece of trash tossed from a weather balloon 15 miles up in the sky.

I know that Mark Penn reads The Fix, since CC is always willing to print the Clinton jeremiad-of-the-moment, so read this, Penn: YOU'RE THROUGH! GOD BLESS HILLARY CLINTON, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN YOU'VE BILKED HER AND HER SUPPORTERS OUT OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! I doubt you could get anyone elected dog catcher! We look forward to seeing you on a couch next to your loser comrades-in-arms, Shrum and Matalin!

Abraham Lincoln served less time in the US congress than Barack Obama. Lincoln prior to that served in the Illinois senate and was an activist lawer serving in social justice causes. He gave great speeches and those who opposed his politics try to say he was too inexperienced to lead the country and that speeches weren't enough and that he was unqualified to lead the country in a time of war.

"You ... you ... know I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentialy have to start now before having served the day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that but I am not one of those people."

he is taking a page out of the Karl Rove playbook, he's using the results of the repulsives relentlessly hammering the AMERICAN CITIZENS about the head and shoulders for 16 years with their cover story....for why it's allright for them to have homosexual love fests in the whitehouse on a regular basis, but Bill Clinton is a bad person

think I'm a whacko, nut case ? good prove me wrong

SEARCH on Jeff Gannon, Guckert, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, are gay

Obama has been taking a ride off of the Repulsive scammers work

as his own.

"The Clintons,"

the only Democrats to defeat the Repulsives SCAMMERS on their home turf

in the last 60 years

have been getting hammered by limp RUSHING BOUGHT

and numerous other Repulsive Scammers for 16 years.

GOP ers hate losing money and it going to the people....

GOP ers hate not being able to charge their business expenses to the people...

who is going to make out in IRAQ ????

SAUDI UAE KUWIAT bushCo and CRONYs and war profiteers

will AMERICANS see that money ?????

how are you doing AMERICA ????

can you feel the love as the GOP ers call you

welfare cases ?????

as they take home the lions share of the FISCAL BUDGET to their families...

and you lose your homes ????

look around. come out of your middle school playground popularity contest and look at what is going on.

Hillary is going through McGovern treatment and

Obama is the new Hubert Humphrey...who will either lose to McCain or be restrained so that he is ineffective if he gets the nomination..

JFK was killed

Jimmy Carter was backstabbed.

Bill Clinton persevered and built the economy back up....he withstood these people for 8 years....and the GOP ers don't want any more

MONEY interruptus

take them down, remove them from power permanently and pass legislation that requires them to be just as responsible for their felonious behavior as you have to be...

arrest them for treason, and execute them and the sentence when found guilty

Mark Penn further cements his place as the biggest weasel in modern politics, attempting to outspin this story after the campaign is called out for running this ad despite their candidate's clear lack of any foreign policy experience of her own by claiming momentum BEFORE the Texas/Ohio contests tomorrow. If he came out with this garbage on Wednesday, then so be it. But then again, that would be above board, and obviously Penn could never do anything like THAT...

So, ok. It is 3:00 am. Hillary is up, trying to find Bill, who is out womanizing. She's p.o.'d, and pushes the red button. Great.

I mean, that is about the level of argument she is making. Face it, folks, her 'experience' does not equate with being 'the decider.' Obviously, George W Bush has that experience. Do we want him in the White House because of his 'experience,' or do we want Barack Obama, who shows good judment. 'Nuff said!

Furthermore, I like Barack's choice of spouse, and his spouse's loyalty to him more than Hillary's 'experience' in that realm, any time. All of this is just a part of the reason that Hillary cannot win. Vote for Obama.

Mark Penn further cements his place as the biggest weasel in modern politics, attempting to outspin this story after the campaign is called out for running this ad despite their candidate's clear lack of any foreign policy experience of her own by claiming momentum BEFORE the Texas/Ohio contests tomorrow. If he came out with this garbage on Wednesday, then so be it. But then again, that would be above board, and obviously Penn could never do anything like THAT...

"Neither has Obama. But we have to trust him IN SPITE OF his dimwitted comments about international affairs.

Obama is getting a free ride on Iraq, too. It is quite easy for anyone to claim they would have made the right choice. But nobody ever asked him--he was busy not-voting in Illinois and getting ready to run for the national Senate.

What is wrong with you people? Honestly."
Please, it didn't take me two eyes to see that the Iraq war would take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and stretch our armed forces too thin, especially the Army and Marines. And had I read the 90 page NIE, I would definitely have voted against it. I understand that most legistlators don't take the time to read the bills they are passing after they make it through committe, but damn, this is a war we are talking about and not reading the thing is dereliction of duty.

As for the not-voting thing - whatever. Out of how many thousands of votes and other important bills, you are going to focus on that? Go to his website and educate yourself on the votes he HAS made.

Here's a link to an article on a conference call where Clinton's team crows about the 3am ad, until...

''"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" asked Dickerson.

Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer.''

Clinton's "momentum" is the same experienced by a floatie in a toilet bowl, going round and round until it finally is flushed on down. Thank God America will be done with this turd tomorrow and collectively wipe itsass of the clintons forever.

Maybe Penn could get hired by a Republican campaign and do the Democratic Party a favor. He seems all about process and winning and very little about substance. He's not helping Hillary Clinton win and has really hurt her image, making Obama look better all the time.

"I'm an Obama supporter and I think the question is fair. From everything I've seen in this campaign, he is more than up to the job of making good decisions under pressure."

As do I. fair ad. Fair arguement. Let the ad run where it runs. We don't need to rehash it hear. Unless you are going to give obama equal time. what is his campiagn manager saying? This wouldn't be a major issue if it wasn't every day all day.

At least we onlt have a day left of the moderate sell-outs. then they will have to choose which side they are on. The false choice of hillary clinton is going bye-bye. Choose hillary supporters. Are you gop or not, not this poster, just speaking in generalities. :).

Fair arguement and ad, as is the experiance aguement. Leave it there and let the people make the call. This stacking the deck compleatly for clinton is getting old. Espeically if she loses. Blogs and websites are losing much of the hard earned credibility they have built by selling out to the moderate gop enabling democrats.

I feel you. I though edwards don't us not to replace bush's parrots with ours. :). Clinton is gop so it's all good. Knowing is half the battle they say.

This is the way the gop works. Their leaders speak, and the "journalists" write it down. So are clinton supporters gop sabotuers? Are obama supporters fighting the battle on two fronts? where's the help? Wherever it is, those are the cats who should be given credibility and hits and money. When the sh*t hits the fan leaders show up and cowards run and hide. Many patriotic americans are fighting WITH him, not for him.

those fighting us and america, what does that make you? If clinton is a republcain, are her supporters?

Remember. don't fall for the media game who never admits mistakes and always covers their back. To embrace obama would be to admit they have been propogating agaisnt american for a decade now. Tehy will never admit their bias. Doesn't mean they cannot be held to account for it.

After Texas/Ohio, we've got a full month of full-on battle in one state Pennsylvania....where it all began in the 18th century, where it was re-fought in the 19th century and where it will be renewed (or not?) in the 21st century.

"Very latest polls show Hillary with double digit leads in Ohio and gaining in Texas. Could be a major game change tomorrow!

SNL has coattails!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 3, 2008 02:45 PM
"

HAHAHAHAHA. ;)

Ok. SNL did it. I think it was articles like this one with "news" and "journalism" straight from her campaign manager on all media that is helping her.

Like with Bush, they write down what he and they say, as "news". Clinton is a republcain also, so the same propoganda rules apply. What will they do when she loses? Jump on the "Maccain bandwagon"? Is there a maccain bandwagon? HAHAHAHA

this propogandists have to be shut down one day. They have to be. We are a self-government. In a self-government we need all the free speech we can get, with as little gossip hereesay and propoganda as possible.

Free speech, I know? Freedom of the press I know. But I have a solution. :)

What about we open up lawsuits to private people. this way cc and other gossip national enquirer "bat-boy" stories are free to be put out. But if they are fraudulent or flat out lies or slander they get sued. Then we all when. And we can trust what we read if there's no lawsuit. What's the downside to that?

We are a self-government. How can we govern ourselves with half teh story or less? We can't. Not possible. This is the change this coutnry needs. Cleaning up the media, alittle. put a premium on truth and credibility. That and jail time for treason and bribery. :)

The problem is that the tipping point was really a "tipping over a portajohn" point.

If Clinton does get the momentum after her recent tactics, is it really a plus for the Democrats?

It is certainly a plus for HRC and for John McCain.

We could soldier on through June. Is ANYONE relishing a swamp of a campaign to the convention with Obama having a 100 voted-delegate lead and likely another 50 superdelegate lead? That is likely the best case scenario for HRC.

I'm tempted to say that Penn is nothing but a fool. But then I remembered he's already billed the HRC campaign something north of $15 million. He's not a fool, but he may be guilty of fraud, representing himself as someone who knows how to run a campaign.

Hillary, Mr. Penn & Fear Based Tactics. Same strategy Mr. Bush used to lead America into Iraq, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Wire Tapping all for big business. Remember HRC voted to go to war with Iraq & now shows her true colors. No more Clinton's, I'm looking for change & voting for Obama.

I clicked on this article mistakenly thinking it would provide some new insight or analysis. Instead it was a basic recitation of Mark Penn's talking points and a re-hash of last week's news about the ad.

To reach a "turning point" (Penn's characterization), then Clinton would have to do something to sap the energy of the Obama campaign and its supporters. The "3 AM" ad does nothing to blunt the "Obamathusiasts" (and may not be particulaly compelling to Clinton supporters), so in those terms it is certainly not a "turning point".

But according to previous pronouncements by Penn (and Wolfson), Clinton has had the momentum and the votes all along, so why would they want a "turning point"? The very fact that he describes it as a "turning point" undeniably implies that he felt the Clinton campaign was going the wrong direction previously.

Hillary's 3am slot lost me for her, the recent slander just made things worse. This is the woman who was too busy running for President even back in 2003 to read the NIE. This is the woman whoheld no security clearance in the White House, yet tries to claim some national security experience for those years. It might get her through tomorrow with a win in Ohio and maybe a squeaker in the vote in Texas (not that it should matter, Obama will likely win more delgates regardless of the total vote), but she will be too far behind in delegates (which Penn and Wolfsen said months ago should be the only true standard) to hope for a comeback, and the negative campaign in Texas will probably just invite a brushback both in future states and from national party leaders.

Don't get me wrong. i want the gop disallusioned goper's to support obama. But the gop sabotuers who are trying to destroy the party (to make it like the gop) from the inside need to be pointed out. This way, when they lose they don't cahnge their tune and go along like nothing happened. Like they are not sabotuers burning the candle at both ends. It's a risk/reward proposition. Their is a reward to gossip and propognada as news. But their also is a huge risk. Crediblity irrelevance.

Watch them switch after tomorrow. then you will know who's who and what is what.

gop sabotuers posing as democratics/independants/patriots. May have worked in the past. We see you know. other than healthcare how does clinton differ from maccain? clinton for Maccain's vp?

She's doing all the heavy lifting for the gop. HAs she not earned it. There's compromise and unity right cc. Let's just turn the democratic party to the new republcain party. But who will be the "opposition"? You don't need no stickin opposition party in a fascist police state. Right cc?

"I must emphasize The Media support[ close to 100% ] Obama has, does make a difference. I have spoken to hundreds of folks over the many months of this campaign and have yet to find a single person that thinks he can win the GE."
====================

LOL.

Your hundreds of "folks" now represent over 100 million voters?

In May of 1988, Dukakis had a 49 to 39 lead over George H Bush.

Any argument about who will win the general election is pretty well meaningless.

No one can even figure out tomorrow's!

Not even your 100% Barackafied Media.

The weather in Ohio, however, does not bode well for Hillary's demographics. But does bode well for her demographics in Texas. Could we see a reversal of expectations? Ohio a squeaker for Barack, and Texas a squeaker for Hillary?

Clinton as president not only means Bill Clinton in your face for 4 or 8 years, it also means the slimy folk who are in her campaign would be around the White House. Vote Obama, and if he loses vote McCain. Keep Bill and Wolfson and Penn and Grunwald and Williams and the rest of the evil bunch out of power.

Clinton has zero chance without he media. Without her ploys before every songle elections as the, "outcast". Or the poor media is against her. HAHAHAH

Not when I watch tv or read wesites. All I see is constant attacks daily on "democratic" sites. But you gop'ers wouldn't know nothing about that. Your on gop sites, bashing clinton (supporting her on the sly).

AHHAHAHAHHA.

We'll see who buys it pink. I pray americans are smart enough to believe their ears and eye's over propoganda.

"Why do I always get asked the first question?"

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

We'll see pink tomorrow. Then all you sabotuers like limbaugh and coulter and the rest of teh right-wingers who think they're slick, will be where they belong. With the irrelevant gop

The fact that Hillary's staffers are publicly bickering and blaming each other even before the candidate has officially bowed out is a sure sign of what is inevitable - HRC must step down after March 4th if she can't get landslides in both Ohio and Texas to overturn Obama's considerable lead.

Hillary's campaign was all media spin with little organizational power on the ground. The media and public are TIRED of their ridiculous spins - it's time the Dems moved on so that Obama can concentrate on McCain.

I'll be waiting for statements from obama's campaign manager. I think I may be waiting a while.

Clinton's propoganda is mainstreamed. Obama's statements are targeted. you got to make a living, right cc ( and the media). You gotta bash someone. clinton and the gop will whine and cry, and cry bias. So yo go after obama. Better hope your lying and propoganda pays off. Credibility. What credibility will cc have if clinton is out tomorrow?

clinton cannot win. Even with it being handed to her. She still can't win. wOULD SHE HAVE WON NEW HAMPSHIRE WITHOUT TWEEDY?

Again ,Clinton supporters, please stop the sabotage. She cannot win. You are coming off as gop sabotuers.

At least those who have been fighting this battle see the gop in the democratic party now. Sabotuers. Wolves in sheep's clothing. Moderates.

I told you people once the lines were drawn the moderate sell-out dems would side with the gop. They did, clinton included. Now the question becomes who will the american people side with. The gop made their choice. they choose the rabbit hole and irrelevance. The moderates follow them down. Who will america side with. The fascist gop cult and their moderate sabotuer sell-outs. Or will america side with American ideals. time will tell.

I made my choice. Let's hope america and americans do the right thing and do not submit their power to fear.

I'm amazed that posters haven't yet pointed out that the fundamental premise of Clinton's new ad -- that Obama's subcommittee conducts oversight of the war in Afghanistan -- is fundamentally dishonest. He oversees the Subcommittee on European Affairs; there is no inherent connection to Afghanistan in that assignment. The Clinton campaign has argued that there is a connection, since we want more help from NATO in Afghanistan. Yet hearings about something as important as the role of NATO in Afghanistan would be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, not a subcommittee.

I'd like to see CC mention that in his article, rather than just shilling for the Clinton campaign.

All these comments attacking CC are out of line. He's up-front that this is spin straight from the campaign (or in this case, a lonely and getting lonelier corner of a campaign), and it's helpful to see it unfiltered. We're experienced newsmedia connoisseurs, we can see it for what it is.

Also, some Obama fans here need to understand that working-the-refs gets a little tiresome. We have a long long way to go until November. Save it for when it matters.

I must emphasize The Media support[ close to 100% ] Obama has, does make a difference. I have spoken to hundreds of folks over the many months of this campaign and have yet to find a single person that thinks he can win the GE. These SPIN merchants are so out of touch with ordinary folk, I often wonder how many are influenced, and to what extent, by this constant "Analysis" of what someone says. I also wonder how the states that allow X-overs and registration on the day of the primary has affected the results.

During Tuesday night's Democratic debate, Mr. Obama responded to a hypothetical question by stating that although he intended to withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, he reserved the right to send them back into the country "if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq." Mr. McCain, speaking at a campaign event in Texas, replied with wry sarcasm to Mr. Obama's statement. "I have some news," Mr. McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.' "

If the United States abandoned that country, al Qaeda "wouldn't be establishing a base. They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen," Mr. McCain added, criticizing Mr. Obama for waving a "white flag" of surrender.

The following day, Mr. Obama, seemingly thrown onto the defensive by the Arizona Republican's blunt criticism, said he would "always reserve the right to go in and strike al Qaeda if they were in Iraq." Mr. McCain replied later: "So, I guess that means that he would surrender and then go back." Mr. McCain is exactly right on this point. Mr. Obama can't seem to grasp that his position is incoherent: One the one hand, he wants to out-compete Mrs. Clinton for primary votes from hard-left, Bush-hating anti-war types. (And judging from the recent primary results, he's succeeding.) But at the same time, Mr. Obama has to at least pretend to be tough on terrorism (at least tough-sounding enough for the focus groups), so he ties himself up in knots with caveats about returning to Iraq after surrendering the country to al Qaeda -- something that would be a logistical nightmare and be furiously opposed by the left-wing constituent groups that form the backbone of his political coalition.

I agree that the words of a campaign's chief strategist should never be taken at face value, especially those of Mark Penn, but there does seem to have been a switch in the political outlook since Friday. The recent spat of polls shows marked improvement for Clinton today. She has widened her lead in Ohio and erased any lead Obama had in Texas. According to today's Rasmussen poll, Clinton polls better than Obama against McCain. We will have to wait until tomorrow, for sure. But change may be in the wind.

HRC's "momentum" is more a "fairy tale" than anything here. HRC's campaign must come up with anything plausible, no mater how far-fetched, to stay in the race. The campaign will use that and anything else (including redefining what the definition of "lose" is as in if we lose Ohio and Texas (paraphrased), campaign's over) to stay in through May.

The fact is that she's in until the Rezko trial is over. (Sun Times has good articles on the real facts of the case.) Fitgerald takes no prisoners and HRC's campaign hopes that something will stick to keep the fundraisers motivated to continue to finance the campaign. It's good for BHO to get these attacks now. As parkerfl noted, www.political-buzz.com has a good analysis, not the least of which is the analysis of why it hurts McCain in terms of visibility in the media to have a race that is not attracting any more attention. JSM's campaign will be lobbing the same things at BHO if BHO gets the nomination which he probably will.

Just when I thought Chris Mathews had the corner on misogyny, The Washington Post (via Media Matters) just makes my whole day:

Though Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has stated that "[c]oncern about keeping women as newspaper readers has been an issue for many years" at the newspaper, the Post published an essay by Charlotte Allen in which she called women "kind of dim," suggested that women were not only "the weaker sex" but "the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial," and claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been "marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex."

Charlotte? Oh, can I call you Ms. Allen? About your "permanently occluded brain": April Fool's Day is NEXT month, my friend. Jessica Valenti at Feministing has a couple things to say to you, too.
"

they are not as dumb as they seem. to bad Obama has to take the heat for the media's bias. No accountability or credibility. Attacking Obama daily on every site will not give you the credibility you crave cc.

You have to get it the old fashioned way. Hopefully this all ends tomorrow. If not clinton and her fox like media will continue to rip obama up, for her true party. That is the gop's only shot. Democratic sabotage. Suppressing votes. They cannot win in an even free election. Not possible.

Edwards used to say we cannot change bush's cronies and propogandists for ours (clinton's). How is clinton nad her lying propogandists any differant than bush's. They are gop. By words actions and tactics.

This race was over in NH. Obama to win the presidency or Clinton wins D nomination by chicanery. If the latter then Clinton loses presidency to McCain, if the former then Obama wins presidency easily. Obama gets the turnout and Clinton will not.

Perhaps you should label your posts, Chris. Sometimes you provide thoughtful analysis. Other times you act as mouthpiece for the not-to-be-believed spin coming out of the campaigns.

Let's take the tipping point comment from Mark Penn. Every serious pundit I've heard suggests that this late in the race, there is no way to catch up in pledged delegates. Further, even if she wins the vote in Ohio and Texas, it could be that she'll pick up fewer than 10 net delegates, leaving Obama still with a 100 delegate lead with only 12 states left.

We've seen before Clinton victories in NH and NV. Did they hearken a tipping point? No, they just served as a temporary obstacle for the Obama campaign to overcome.

Even if she wins one or two states tomorrow, she's in the position of a challenger in a heavyweight fight in the late rounds behind on points whose only hope is to land a knockout. A look at her ads suggest she has started swinging wildly. We've already seen the Obama campaign's ability to parry.

The best she can do is win a late round tomorrow and fight on, still behind, still needing a miracle to win. Tipping point? I don't think so.

Chris
This is really disappointing. Penn and Wolfson have done a horrible job with this campaign. Poor strategy, even poorer execution. Now they have gone more blatantly negative and are thought to "geniuses". When will there be some really serious questioning of Hillary's so-called "experience"? Experienced at what??? Thirty-five years? Of what? So she yelled at a Burmese leader ! BFD !
The two biggest things she has ever run have been the health care reform initiative and this campaign. Nice record of experience. Who else could go 0-11 and have it suggested that she has the momentum ? Penn is right about the big Mo, it's just that he hasn't sensed it' s going AGAINST her. Look at how the margins have shrunk in 2 weeks. What Hillary, her "geniuses" can't accept is that the majority of people don't like her and don't want her. I guess she was "too busy" to notice, just like she's been too busy to reveal her tax info. She knows it would kill her campaign. Better to end it now than in April or May.Too busy to watch ALL that Bill was doing in the White House.
"Tell your Ma; tell your Pa; Gonna send you back to Arkansas." With full attribution to Ray Charles.

From LA Times:
In a campaign that has frequently defied expectations, a consensus emerged as the candidates caromed across the country: Clinton must win Texas and Ohio to have any serious hope of sustaining her bid to become the nation's first female president. A split decision would not suffice, analysts said, and winning narrowly may not help.

Clinton and Obama are both Senators who deal in the legislative realm. The best predictor of how their life experiences will form their executive actions is found in analyzing their campaigns.

Obama hit upon the nation's fundamental need for "change" immediately; he forged new heights in online donations. He planned past Super Tuesday. He responds clearly and immediately to attacks. His strategy to bring in more voters has paid off handsomely. His supporters are enthusiastic. His message is consistent.

You can fill in the blanks for Clinton. But can you imagine her "kitchen sink" approach to foreign policy?

That telephone rings for a very long - annoying - time. Why did it take that long for Hillary to pick up the phone?
- She expected Bill to pick it up
- She needed to dress up and pick it up at the desk
- She knew that it was the white phone and NOT the red phone ringing

"That Obama's momentum may be slowing doesn't mean that it's gone...But the fact that Obama primary wins are not dominating the headlines the way they were in February has stopped the stampede, and given Clinton a shot to at least stay in the race."

Posted by: jbritt3 March 3, 2008 01:15 PM

HRC's only chance is that with this supposed and subtle change in momentum she wins Ohio and at least the popular vote in Texas. Then, maybe she can parlay this change in momentum to an unease with Obama - sort of buyer's remorse - winning PA and giving the superdelegates cover to stick with her. Still a longshot but what else can she do except bow out gracefully?

The line from the debate about being too busy campaigning to hold a hearing on oversight of Afghanistan was too good for a competent campaign staff to ignore. It should be only a small surprise that Penn et al almost missed it. An easy hit.

Also, the line from the Clinton's should be "if we win 2 of 3 among TX, OH, and PA, get more primary votes down the stretch, and stay within 100 in pledged delegates, it would be appropriate for us to go to the superdelegates and say, 'in light of the buyers remorse on Obama, you should choose who you think is the best fall candidate and don't feel snow balled."

They are pitching a line that can be laughed off (Obama needs to sweep), and their more credible case (above) is not being made to the likes of Chris and others. If the only choice between narratives is the ludicrous one that Obama must sweep 4 states and the general one that she must win decisive victories in TX and OH to continue, then her staff should not be surprised if their spin gets laughed off if she wins OH and RI by 5+%, wins TX narrowly, and does not gain more than 20 delegates on the day.

Hillary's fear-mongering will not work. You can't bully and berate people into excitement for your campaign.

For those of you who say its a "reality check," I say get real! Some 30 second ad basically scaring the bejesus out of you (especially targeted to uneducated women, I suppose) is not reality. Its the lowest form of pandering and is equivalent to the same base instincts of xenophobia, racism, and sexism.

This ad would be turned against her in a heartbeat if she ever faces McCain. As would most of her attacks against Obama.

Hillary needs to realize that fear is not a legitimate political platform, and neither is running as "hope buzzkill."

"It hasn't been HER to manage a crisis. She hasn't done the actual negotiation of anything"

Neither has Obama. But we have to trust him IN SPITE OF his dimwitted comments about international affairs.

Obama is getting a free ride on Iraq, too. It is quite easy for anyone to claim they would have made the right choice. But nobody ever asked him--he was busy not-voting in Illinois and getting ready to run for the national Senate.

Is this the same Mark Penn that now says he had very little say in the Clinton campaign debacle? But now he speaks for the campaign again?

By the way WaPo, great job of reporting the Clinton talking points that the momentum has turned over national security issues without mentioning . . . I don't know, maybe the fact that every time Mark Penn has made a statement it has been completely untrue or, at the very least, a wild exaggeration.

Geez . . . don't tell me you're buying into this whole media bias nonsense also, which, by the way, was cleverly proffered by the Clinton campaign just in time to ensure a few days of pro-Clinton coverage before the March 4th primaries. Not that it ultimately matters.

At least the Clinton campaign FINALLY has shown a smidgen of competence.

Tipping point? More like "too little, too late." The train already left the station.

In a front-page stunner, Clinton campaign message guru Mark Penn e-mails the L.A. Times over the weekend to say that he had "no direct authority in the campaign," describing himself as merely "an outside message advisor with no campaign staff reporting to me."

"I have had no say or involvement in four key areas -- the financial budget and resource allocation, political or organizational sides. Those were the responsibility of Patti Solis Doyle, Harold Ickes and Mike Henry, and they met separately on all matters relating to those areas," the e-mail said, as quoted by the paper.

From today's WP:

Mark Penn, the chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign, asserted today that an ad that raised the specter of a national security crisis and questioned Sen. Barack Obama's (Ill.) readiness to handle such an event has fundamentally altered the shape of the race heading into tomorrow's votes in Ohio and Texas.

Penn said the ad, which began airing Friday, effectively framed the question of "who's ready and prepared to be commander-in-chief." Penn added: "Just by merely asking the question and nothing more, millions of people understood what is the answer to that question." He called it a "tipping point" in the race that has signaled a "change in momentum."

One's personal war room must always be ready--with both messages, if need be."

You have to remember that despite the current "frontrunner" status, Obama has always been the real underdog because of Hillary Clinton's name recognition and people's short memories about the various scandals that continually put Clinton ethics in question.

Mr. Obama hasn't campaigned on the fact that there is standing room only for the skeletons in Mrs. Clinton's closet. The Republicans would love for her to be the nominee precisely for this reason.

The one who's getting a pass from the media here is Hillary. It hasn't been HER to manage a crisis. She hasn't done the actual negotiation of anything other than the healthcare mess and that was a DISASTER in the highest order. Yet people are buying this 35 years of experience BS and foreign policy BS. This from the woman that didn't read the NIE?

Sorry Obamiacs, as painful as it may sound to someone who thinks style IS substance, Obama IS very weak on national securtiy-HE has ZERO experience.

For all his rhetoric and flashy Rock Concert type rallies Obama simply needs more experience before the average Joe six-pack will be comfortable referring to him as 'Commader and Chief'-JFK, with JFK's war time knowledege Obama Ain't.

At least Hillary had war experince working with Bill on the Balkan war and has served on the Defense Approriations Committee in the Senate for several years- And I think the heads of the Services would be more comfortable with her than Obama....

And the Obamiacs think Barack will be able to stand-up to John McCain? Not a chance........

Mark Penn's screeds have become worn and stale. He is a overpaid hired gun who will spin gold from bovine scat to make a living. But Hillary hired him and the other Clintonista cabal, so Hillary gets what she paid for.

If the 3:00 a.m. ad really is working for Hillary Clinton, it says volumes about her largest demographic, uneducated women. When has Hillary ever faced a crisis moment, and when (even given ample time) has she shown good judgment?

Frankly, I think Barack's response is better. I think the right answer is not experience but judgment. I think that is how you beet McCain who's judgment was questioned by his superiors and why he was passed over for Admiral. Do you really want someone who was passed over for Admiral be put in charge of the armed forces?

Where is there any evidence that Hillary Clinton, or John McCain for that matter, is better prepared to handle a dangerous international crisis than Barack Obama? On what grounds is this assessment, pushed constantly by both CLinton and McCain based?

the Libs are so disorganized and confused thay can't pass a budget, can't find a candidate, can't lose a war, can't raise taxes, can't fix social security, can't help the teachers union at the expense of the kids fast enough, can't build a fence, can't warm the planet, can't badmouth the economy, and in the end, can't win an election.

Just what is it that you Libs are promising this time around. Lower gas prices? Less corruption? cooperation? fixing (pick one) education, social security, health care, trade deficit, war, economy? I won't hold my breath, there is going to be an immense shortage of blue in the next election already.

Umm, the President has the greatest lattitude in foreign affairs and national security issues. And Congress by design cannot tackle these issues in any timely way. So obviously you have to have the strongest President in this aspect. Wrangling with legislators is really not that important.

The Clinton campaign has been accused of "fear" mongering. I call it "reality" mongering. "Reality"--I know it is a difficult word for some of you. Clinton is not even the only Democratic candidate to point out Obama's utterly infantile approach to foreign policy. The Republicans will also highlight that. And he keeps repeating it!!!

I was initially an Obama supporter, but changed allegiance to Edwards after last August(!)'s comments about sitting down and meeting with leaders of terrorist nations, a statement he still has not totally recanted (see recent remarks about how to deal with Cuba, a country of literally ZERO consequence to the U.S.) I slapped my head last August and said "Holy cow, this guy's an idiot."

I'd support a policy of greater isolationism over what he is offering. Dare I say it, Ron Paul seems practical in comparison.

It will be a ROUT of Hillary. Penn has made many many mistakes. If he were a brilliant strategist, Hillary would have already won the nomination after California. Think about it. Obama is supposed to be untested, inexperienced, "all words", fluff, yada yada yada. The question is if Obama is all those, how come he came this far? Millions could not be delusional. The more one knows about Obama or sees him face to face, the more people realize that he has maturity, substance, intellect, seriousness, and above all, he is a walking testament to all that is good about America: equal opportunity, justice, meritocracy, etc.

Who is he kidding? This ad opens Hillary up to derision and mockery. Who would take this ad seriously? All I could think about was that Bill was on the other end of the call making up some excuse why he would be late. Something to do with a late strategy meeting with campaign interns. Who ever had the idea for this ad should be held by the collar while someone kicks their a## all around campaign headquarters. If they really wanted to help Hillary, her staff would get her to rest her voice. Listening to her on the news yesterday was even more painful than usual. Her hoarse, shrill assertions that she is the "one" were pathetic. Texas and Ohio, please vote for Obama so we can put Hillary out to pasture (or the glue factory) where she belongs.

This is a great ad showing Obama for what he is -- an ambitious person, putting himself before the good of the people. It is unbelievable that he would accept a committee appointment to oversee a war in progress and hold no hearings whatsoever. Running for office was more important.
Although, we may be lucky he wasn't paying attention. I would hate to think of his bombing Pakistan as he as said he would do.
Obama was also head of a committee for oversight of Europe. Last I heard it had met only once -- for a day in London.
I would prefer a President more involved with the country than himself.

HRC can NOT sell herself so she most take the Bush/Rove idea of making stuff up and just say it loud enough and often enough and hope people believe it - Too bad Obama has CHOOSEN not to play dirty ball with HRC - because her tax returns would be excellent fonder, or her claims of experience that have NO substance or the excellnet way she was prepared to run/manage her campaign.

"Just what we need, another completely delusional presidency that substitutes "spin" for the truth and acts like they believe it!" - excellent, right on point

Mark Penn is right about one thing - current big MO is on Hillary Clinton's side.

Just look at today's (March 3 rd) polls. All you see are PLUSES on Clinton side over Obama, except Zogby which is family owned by Obama superdelegate anyway. Zogby said Obama will win California by 12%, lost by 10%. This guy is off by 22% only and still has room to work with 78% in next poll.

It's natural enough that Sen. Clinton's campaign operatives would like the media that uses them as sources to credit their work.

It's more likely that the two-week gap between the last round of Democratic primaries and those to be held tomorrow is what has slowed Sen. Obama's message somewhat. It isn't necessarily anything he's done wrong; he's just come very far, very fast, and Democrats have been given a little time to think about a guy they don't really know all that well.

That Obama's momentum may be slowing doesn't mean that it's gone, and the fact is that as Democratic primary voters have seen more of him, they've tended to like what they see. But the fact that Obama primary wins are not dominating the headlines the way they were in February has stopped the stampede, and given Clinton a shot to at least stay in the race.

"Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security, bringing our troops home from Iraq and pursuing al-Qaeda in Afghanistan," but she was too busy to read the NIE before voting on the Iraq war must have been left out due to time constraints.

A 3:00 A.M. phone call...ha. The only 3:00 a.m. call Hillary has ever taken for tradegy is to say "Bill, it's for you." She has absolutely no experience in managing crisis. Her idea of crisis is "my husband is cheating on me!" What a joke! McCain, on the other hand, has had to face a split decision as a Lt. in battle. Where his life & the lives of others were at stake, he has experience in dealing with his pressured situations.

As for Obama, he has even less experience than Hillary at this. Which, I know his big claim is that he has good judgement. Obama also claims he wants to put partisan politics behind us and get things done on the issues. Well, Obama's rhetoric doesn't match his record. Obama's record is one of a total liberal who hasn't been part of any bi-partisan compromises. McCain, on the other hand, has all kind of scars b/c he has been attacked on the right & left for compromising to get things done. 3 examples you ask?

1. The McCain/Feingold Finance Reform Bill. He went into connection with Russ Feingold, one of the more liberal senators in the US, to form a compromise he felt was good for America and tough on lobbyists and pork-barrell politicians on both sides of the isle.

2. Immigration Reform: He went against the Republican base of "Round em up, send em back" & the liberal base of "we don't really need borders" to try & seal the borders while forming a fair & more efficient way for legal immigration. This took guts by a man who wants to do what's right for America despite the objections of radicals from both sides of the isle.

3. Gang of 14 compromise. President Bush's judicial nominee's were being held up by Democrats & Bill Frist & Republican leaders were threatening to vote to end the filabuster. So John McCain & traditional Republicans & Democrats came together with a compromise. Democrats said they would vote to bring up a vote on Bush's judical nominees unless there were extrodinary circumstances involved with the nominee. In exchange, the 7 Republicans involved would not vote for Republicans right to remove the filabuster and would preserve that right for Democrats in the case of extrodinary circumstances surrounding a nominee. This compromise was scoffed by the radical right & left of this nation.

Obama or Clinton was involved in no such compromises to my knowledge. If you look at records during Obama's speeches, you would really think you were hearing John McCain talk about non-partisanship & standing on principles, not Obama. So, would someone like to tell me where Obama's rhetoric starts matching his record? Futhurmore, what experience does Clinton really have in emergency situations?

What momentum?? The Clinton campaign will NEVER catch up on pledged delegates because they will NOT score 65-70% victories need to overcome Obama's 150+ pledged delegate advantage. Even if Obama lost ALL of tomorrow's elections, Clinton would not score the knock-out needed to overcome him. The Clinton campaign and can spin and recast all its wants, but as Donna Brazille said, "The writing is already on the wall." Concede Hillary, concede!

Seems to me that anyone who cares about this National Security stuff is voting for McCain, not HRC or Obama. HRC needs to get her voters by doing what the left usually does, ie be better than Obama by bribing them with their own money.

BTW, does it seem to anyone that HRC is not running a campaign to win, but rather is running 'not to lose'? The dichotomy of strategies between TX and OH leads me to that conclusion.

After losing 11 straight primaries in a row, the Clinton people are touting their "momentum". Just what we need, another completely delusional presidency that substitutes "spin" for the truth and acts like they believe it!

What this shows is that Hillary will never be too busy to attack anyone and anything that stands between herself and what she believe's is owed to her: the presidency. You may recall she was, in fact, too busy to read the NIE before voting to give G. Bush his war in Iraq. Please, please, can we get Hillary off the stage?

Truly, where is Mark Penn coming up with this junk, exactly? Is he pulling it directly out of his rear end, or is there some middle man involved?

Zogby currently has Obama winning in both Texas and Ohio. Not that I trust any polls after the New Hampshire debacle. But c'mon. If Hillary doesn't win both OH and TX by a decisive margin (5% or more, I'd say), she needs to call it a ball game and let Obama move on to campaigning against McCain.

I predict we're going to see razor-thin margins in both states tomorrow.

Hillary & her spin doctors would be a great follow up to Bush and the last 7 years. They're both masters at moving the goalposts time and time again. Unless Obama blows her out in a state above 10 million, they will continually use their spin to somehow maintain its Hillary's to lose. Unless she wins big in all states tomorrow, she's done. No matter what Chris Cilizza or Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews says, she is D-E-D.

Hillary & her spin doctors would be a great follow up to Bush and the last 7 years. They're both masters at moving the goalposts time and time again. Unless Obama blows her out in a state above 10 million, they will continually use their spin to somehow maintain its Hillary's to lose. Unless she wins big in all states tomorrow, she's done. No matter what Chris Cilizza or Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews says, she is D-E-D.

"He then argued that if Obama can't win Ohio and Texas with "every possible strategic advantage," it speaks to an unease among voters with the idea of Obama as the Democratic nominee."
Of course that's what he would argue. He's wrong. It 'speaks' to two good candidates that voters are having a hard time deciding on. It 'speaks' to the fact that Hilary, the coronated leader for the nomination wasn't really. That there wass unease about more of the same divisive politics preventing America from solving it's real problems instead of arguing about gays, guns and fetus's. 30 more hours!

An operative of the Clinton campaign says that the Clinton campaign is going well, and that voters will vote for Hillary. He offers no evidence or analysis to support that claim. (For instance, are there any polls showing Hillary's new momentum, or did Penn just make that up?) How is this news? And how does quoting Penn uncritically make you a journalist?

Obama has been chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on European Affairs since January.

It's unfortunate that Obama hasn't been able to give time and energy to a committee whose primary purpose is to gather research.... especially since the Bush administration has been undermining the foundations of our Atlantic alliance which Bush referred to contemptously as "old Europe."

But, is this a fault of Obama, or a fault of the long, costly, all-consuming nature of the campaign for president.

It's obvious Obama places the utmost importance on our relationship with our European allies, as he said in a press release last July.... he wants to renew our relationship with them, consult on proposed missile defense deployments and secure additional European troops for the Afghan security mission.

He knows what has to be done, but... running against the entrenched Clinton political machine is a full-time undertaking. I'm glad Obama committed himself to doing so.

When he was in the state senate (4 yr. term) he was busy campaigning for the US senate. He 's been a US senator 3 years and one of those years was spent campaigning for the presidency. If elected he would be one of the most inexperienced presidents in our history. I'll have to research that. Kennedy was in congress for 14 years not sure about Lincoln. But it's a pretty short resume.

I think Hillary wont drop out if she only wins one, unfortunately because I see her keeping texas VERY close, early last week it looked like Obama might runaway with Texas but it now appears that Hillary is hangin in there.

Unfortunately, this is the state of American politics - FEAR. W proved it '04 and Hillary is taking a page out of that successful book. Can you blame her? Meanwhile, if Obama is to become the uniter and leader he describes, he must overcome this type of crap/politics. For our sakes, I HOPE he does.

I think Clinton's campaign staff has been more toxic in this race than she has. But then again, she hired them. I guess this is who she would hire for her cabinet - intensely polarizing spin doctors who will say or do anything to keep Clinton in the limelight. These people are the disgusting cast-aways that Obama is looking to put in the past - for good. Lets show the world that we're ready to move on beyond the politics that continually chip away at our integrity with every election. Obama is the only one who refuses to spin and refuses to go negative. That's why I'm voting for him.

Come on CC, don't take this stuff at face value. You failed to include the fact that, when asked, Clintons campaign basically admitted that Hillary never faced a "red crisis phone moment" where she had to make an important national security decision on the spot (http://www.slate.com/id/2185492/). Her campaign cited her speech on women's' rights in Beijing in 1995, which doesn't really count (I've told off dictators in Burma to their face - really, I have- and I would not say that gives me the capacity to manage a national security crisis). I think most voters are going to wonder about this as well.

What a shock that one of the bigger mud-slingers around would claim his tactics are working. He will have to remind us again about how well that played in Wisconsin. With a maturity level this microscopic, I wouldn't let Hillary baby-sit my kids. If this is your best shot at proving that your presidential, Hillary can pack up her carpetbags and go back to New York.